On September 1, a New Jersey Superior Court issued a lengthy opinion, upholding the use of vote-counting electronic machines that have no paper trail. Gusciora v Corzine, L-2691-04, Mercer County. The decision does require New Jersey elections officials to harden guidelines for anti-virus software, to prevent vote-counting computers from ever being connected to the internet, to improve seals on the machines, and to review procedures on preventing anyone from tampering with the machines while they are in storage or in transit.

New Jersey has already changed its law to require a paper trail, but the state hasn’t implemented the new law yet. Thanks to John Paff and John Carbone for this news.

Charles R. Earl, a former Republican member of the Ohio legislature, is running in the Ohio Libertarian primary for Secretary of State. The primary is in May and Earl almost certainly will be the only candidate seeking the Libertarian Party’s nomination for Secretary of State. Thanks to Kevin Knedler for this news. Earl was elected to the State House in 1982 and served one term.

The Los Angeles Times of February 1 has this editorial, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court should decide Doe v Reed in favor of the state of Washington. The issue is whether Washington state should turn over the names and addresses of people who sign referendum petitions to people who want to put those names and addresses on a web page.

The editorial says that unlike voting, signing a petition takes place in public. The weakness in that argument is that signing a petition does not necessarily take place in public. Some petitions are circulated among like-minded groups, at meetings of such groups. Not all petition signatures are gathered in public spaces. Also there is a big difference between having one’s signature and address seen by, at most, 20 people who sign the same sheet below the signature of a voter who wishes privacy, and having one’s signature and address posted to a web page. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.